4.7 Article

Type I and Ir pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB): A report from the International PPB/DICER1 Registry

期刊

CANCER
卷 129, 期 4, 页码 600-613

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34593

关键词

DICER1; DICER1 tumor predisposition; lung cyst; pleuropulmonary blastoma; type I PPB; type Ir PPB

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type I and Ir type PPB in children are characterized by the presence of primitive small cells, with favorable outcomes for type I, but resection is still necessary to prevent progression. Chemotherapy may be beneficial for children at increased risk for recurrence/progression.
BackgroundPleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) is the most common lung cancer of infancy and early childhood. Type I PPB is a purely cystic lesion that has a microscopic population of primitive small cells with or without rhabdomyoblastic features and may progress to type II or III PPB, whereas type Ir lacks primitive small cells. MethodsChildren with suspected PPB were enrolled in the International PPB/DICER1 Registry. Pathology was centrally reviewed, and follow-up was ascertained annually. ResultsBetween 2006 and 2022, 205 children had centrally reviewed type I or Ir PPB; 39% of children with type I and 5% of children with type Ir PPB received chemotherapy. Outcomes were favorable, although 11 children (nine with type I and two with type Ir PPB) experienced progression to type II/III (n = 8) or regrowth of type I PPB at the surgical site (n = 3), none of whom received chemotherapy before progression. Age and cyst size in combination were more suitable than either factor alone in predicting whether a particular lesion was type I or Ir PPB. ConclusionsFor young children with type I PPB, outcomes are favorable, but complete resection is indicated because of the risk for progression. Chemotherapy may be useful in a subset of children at increased risk for recurrence/progression. Efforts to risk stratify children with type I PPB to optimize outcomes while reducing treatment-related side effects are underway.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据